Is Evolution Satanic?

One of the basic arguments made by creationists is that evolution is a Satanic viewpoint, created by the Devil to deceive people into abandoning Jesus. Organized science, therefore, is nothing more than an atheistic, anti-Christian cult who -- through evil intent or naïve ignorance -- are dedicated to doing the work of Satan by spreading “evolutionism” and destroying decent Christian values.


The creationists are actually quite open about this belief, and will freely assert that evolutionary theory -- even so-called “theistic evolution” in which God is the planner and driving force behind the evolution of the various species -- is the work of Satan.


To quote the Reverend Doctor Henry Morris, “Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of ‘that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’.”


These same people assert that the reason why the modern scientific community spreads the teaching of evolution is not because it has literal mountains of evidence behind it, or because its the best explanation of how species arrive, but rather because they -- the scientists that is -- are atheistic agents of Satan. John Morris, a “creation scientist” at the Institute for Creation Research -- a religious organization that doesn’t actually do much research to be honest -- flatly states that “most scientists reject God.” Creationist Jerry Bergman writes that, “The atheist belief structure is the norm for science. The fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best non-theists for whom God is irrelevant.” Henry Morris asserts, “Modern evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists have ruled out the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God as creator of the universe” and concludes that evolutionary theory can only be accepted “if one categorically dismisses the existence of an eternal God.” Creationists have referred to science fiction giant -- and great scientific mind -- Isaac Asimov as “the atheist Asimov”, and repeatedly assert that astronomer Carl Sagan was “blind to the abundant evidence of God.”


In the mind of a creationist, every area of modern society is permeated with this Satanic conspiracy. Every area. Take, for example, Henry Morris’s opinion regarding Hollywood:

“That old Dragon called Satan had invaded Paradise and God had cast him out into the earth, where he continues to this day leading men and women to rebel against God and His word. ‘Paradise’ is translated directly from the Greek, which in turn was taken from the Hebrew word ‘pardec’, meaning park. Thus, it is no coincidence that Hollywood’s leading atheist producer, Steven Spielberg, chose to fill his “Jurassic Park” with a bestiary of revived dinosaurs. Once again, the serpent is loose in Paradise.”

Apparently, the existence and success of “Jurassic Park” is proof positive that Steven Spielberg is just another part of the International Satanic Evolutionary Conspiracy. Last I heard, Steven Spielberg is a practicing Jew who actually believed in God in addition to believing in evolution. Funny how that works.


The creationist notion that they are the victims of some vast Satanic conspiracy simply cannot be taken seriously. These people attempt to paint their viewpoint as the only Christian viewpoint, implying both that their theological interpretations are representative of Christianity as a whole, and that their interpretations are the only rational view on the subject, while all other viewpoints are the work of Satan.


Neither of these assertions are true.


The fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis followed by the majority of creationists are, in fact, a tiny minority within Christianity as a whole. Every mainstream Christian denomination flatly dismiss the idea that evolution is the work of the Devil. This was amply demonstrated during the Arkansas “Balanced Treatment” trial. All but two of the plaintiffs were representatives of mainstream religious organizations and churches, including the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Bishops of the Unite Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, and African Methodist Episcopal churches, the head of the Arkansas Prebyterian Church, and individual clergy from the Southern Baptist church. One of the witnesses who testified against “creation science” was a Catholic priest who held a PhD in genetics as well as theology.


How do creationsts respond to the fact that nearly every mainstream religious organization in the United States rejects their theological viewpoint concerning evolution? By claiming that these religious organizations are themselves just another part of the Satanic conspiracy.


Can you think of anything more ridiculous than the idea that the various scientists -- in league with non-fundamentalist religious denominations and film director Steven Spielberg -- are engaged in a vast conspiracy to silence “the truth” that the Devil is actually behind evolution?


The very idea is the product of paranoid insanity. I’m serious. If this is what you really think, you are utterly insane.

It's Simple: Intelligent Design Is Not A Scientific Idea. Period.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific idea.  Its just not.  And if you think otherwise, then you need to actually learn what "science" is, because right now you're demonstrating that you know less than nothing about it.


Part of the problem is that the terminology used in "design theory" aren't actually defined.  The way that the ID movement uses the word "design", for example, has nothing to do with the definition of "design" as it is normally understood.  "Design" is defined in terms of some intelligent agent actively and purposefully arranging something.  The IDers, on the other hand, define "design" by pointing out what "design" isn't (known regularity and chance), therefore making their definition of "intelligent design" the product of an argument from incredulity.


In engineering, a solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or else the "solution" is no solution at all.  Any theory about design must, therefore, address the agent and the purpose, or else its not really about design.  No proponent of Intelligent Design has ever included the agent or the purpose in any attempt at a "scientific" theory of design, and some absolutely come right out and say that these two factors cannot and  should not be included.  Thus, even if the ID crowd were to somehow prove that the universe was purposefully put together, this proof would be practically meaningless.  And it would certainly say nothing about the design in the usual sense of the word.


The idea of "irreducible complexity" also isn't scientific because it, too, is an example of an Argument from Incredulity fallacy.  "I think this is too complex to come about naturally, therefore it must have been created."  Anyone paying attention should recognize how utterly subjective this is.  Whenever one person can think something "too complex to be natural", but another person can say, "No, its still not complex enough... its still natural", the idea behind it isn't science.  Science is either true, or its not.  There's no "might be true" in science.


Lastly, at its core, intelligent design just makes no damned sense at all.  Take spider webs, for example.  Intelligent design says that, because spider webs are complex acts of engineering, the spiders that make them must be intelligent.


And by "intelligent", they mean the spiders must be as smart as people.


Or, it might be that the spiders aren't the intelligent ones, but rather its the spider's designer who instilled into the spider the ability to create heavily complex webs.  The problem being that it could just as easily be argued that the spider's designer isn't intelligent... its just that the spider designer was himself instilled with the ability to create complexity, and was designed that way.


So the question would then become "who designed the designer?"  Or was the designer's designer merely designed?


Such infinitely regressive nonsense gets us nowhere.


But anyway, last and certainly not least, its been admitted by several of its proponents that the entire "Intelligent Design" thing has nothing to do with science and everything to do with sneaking religion into our science classrooms in a way intended to avoid the First Amendment non-establishment clause.

Sorry, But I'm Not Even a Little Stumped...

A gentleman by the name of Richard Bushey, who describes himself as a "a student of religion", though my investigation has so far revealed no actual source of formal education that the man has ever attended, has set a challenge to atheists.

When I first discovered his challenge, I decided that I'd give Mr. Bushey the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that maybe he'd turn out to be educated and intelligent.  Mr. Bushey runs a blog called "Therefore God Exists," the purpose of which he describes is "to help struggling Christians receive answers to the difficult questions, including God’s existence, the truth of the scripture, the truth in orthodox doctrines and so forth."

Laudible goal, I suppose.

Problem is how Mr. Bushey goes about it.

Turns out, I shouldn't have got my hopes up.  You see, after spending some time poking around his blog and reading what he has to say, I've been convinced that Mr. Bushey is just another semi-educated victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect who has convinced himself that he is much smarter than he actually is.

Now to the point.

One of Mr. Bushey's blog entries is entitled 5 Ways To Stump An Atheist.


This piece of Christian apologist "reasoning" is yet another example of what I call "pigeon chess."  With this article, Mr. Bushey has effectively declared himself the winner of the argument before the argument has even started, in typical fundamentalist fashion.  Its easy to win an argument when what you're doing is cooking the books and rigging the game and declaring it over before the other side get's its shot.

Fundamentalist Christians suck at rational thinking, and Mr. Bushey provides a perfect example of what I mean.  The last line in the article reads, "Atheists are afraid to comment on this article because they are stumped by all of these questions."  But then you read the comments and you find several atheists responding clearly and intelligently to the questions, giving rational answers.  Several of the responses include a comment about how they "weren't stumped."  I'm not stumped either, for the record.  No intelligent person would be.

My friend Dave Foda, who brought this article to my attention, points out that Question #2 and Question #3 contradict each other, and that both questions are contradicted by Question #4.  Dave also points out, correctly, that all five questions are Straw Man Arguments, and as such are nothing more than logical fallacy.

Normally I don't bother answering logical fallacies, but I'm going to do it anyway, this time.  Here are my answers to Mr. Bushey's attempt to stump atheists. 

Question #1:  Ask how they (atheists) know that God has no reasons for allowing evil.

This question is based in a classic theological argument known as "The Problem of Evil."  This argument goes something like this:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
3. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
4. God is omnibenevolent (perfectly good).
5. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
6. If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.
7. If God is perfectly good, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
8. If God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.
9. If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
10. If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it—that is, he must not be all-knowing.A4. If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.
11. Evil exists.
12. Therefore, God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

I'd like to point out that this is not an argument atheists use to demonstrate that God does not exist.  Especially given that the first assumption in the argument is "God exists."  Personally, I can't think of anyone who's ever argued that, if God existed there would be no evil, and since evil exists, there is no God.  (That's not a very good argument, because it ignores the possibility that God is a sadistic asshole who enjoys tormenting people for His own amusement.)

On the other hand, I have personally made the argument that if there is a God, and he's the God from the Christian scripture, then he's ultimately the reason why evil exists.  This God of the Christians is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (all loving); not only that, He supposedly has a plan that determines the course of events for all eternity.  Thus, He not only created evil (which would not exist if he did not allow it), he planned for it and encouraged it.  Which means that God is the ultimate cause of all suffering and hardship.

Suffice to say, this has caused Christians a lot of heartburn; since their God is supposedly omni-benevolent, how could such a being allow pain and suffering.  Thousands and thousands of pages have been written trying to justify the fact that people suffer with the idea of a God who is all-loving, but no matter how you spin it, it always boils down to the fact that this supposedly all-loving deity is hurting people.

Mr. Bushey's question specifically asks, "How do atheists know that God has no reasons for allowing evil."  We don't.  We can't.  But we can guess.  And as I've said, the best guess is that he's not omni-benevolent, but is rather a sadistic bastard who gets his jollies out by hurting human beings randomly.

Question #2:   Ask what they would accept as evidence for God’s existence.

In his elaboration of this question, Mr. Bushey suggests that atheists are unreasonable people who will not accept any evidence that God exists.  The problem is, this is another Straw Man argument.  Its not that atheists won't accept any evidence, its that these sorts of Christians (the ones who think they are smarter than they really are) like to dress up logical fallacy and personal opinion as "self-evident proof" that their God is real.  They'll say things like "Nothing can be created without a creator; the world was created, therefore God," ignoring the fact that they haven't demonstrated that the world was created in the first place.  Or they'll base their entire argument on the Bible, and then defend the Bible's authoritative nature by referring to the Bible itself in a brilliant example of Circular Reasoning.

All that said, let me answer Mr. Bushey's question.  What would I, personally, accept as evidence for God's existence.  I've been asked this before, so many times I have an itemized list.

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived.   If the Bible had a verse that read something like, "On the eleventh day of the ninth month, two thousand and one years after the birth of the Son of God, a great nation now unknown shall be attacked by the sons of Esau, destroying the center for world trade and laying that nation low and causing them to abandon their freedom for security; and the nation's leader during this attack shall be one of low-intelligence and cunning who shall work this tragedy to his personal advantage," I'd have become a firm believer on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center fell.Now, I should note that there are some restrictions on which prophecies I find believable and which ones I don't.

• If the prophecy is vague and easily interpreted in a dozen different ways, I'm not going to be concinved.
• If the subject of the prophecy is trivial (anybody can predict its going to be cold next winter), then I'm not going to be convinced.
• If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons than cooking the books to be accurate, I'm not going to be convinced.  Lots of kings had a court astrologer tell them that their reign would last forever and that they'd have many sons and never once mentioned the fact that the king was a tyrant and a rebellion was brewing, because the court astrologer knew better than to piss off the king.
• If the prophecy is self-fulfilling (meaning the mere fact that the prophecy exists will cause people to try and make it come true) then I'm not going to be convinced.
• I will not be convinced by prophecies that "predict" events that have already happened, if you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the writing of the prophecy predates the event it predicts.
• I will not be convinced by prophecies that "predict" events that have already happened, if you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the events it predicts actually happened.
• And lastly, if the prophecy is the lone success in a mountain of failed prophecies, I'm not convinced.  Throw enough mud at the wall, and eventually some of it will stick.

Personally, I think these conditions are reasonable and are only what would be expected of a true prophet, should one ever come along.

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.  If the Bible contained an accurate description of some piece of scientific data that couldn't possibly have been known at the time of the writing of the Bible, I'd be a believer.  And I mean specific and accurate descriptions, not something vague that might possibly be interpreted as scientific if you tilt your head and squint.  I'm looking for something akin to a Bible verse that says, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee that thine energy is as thine mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself.”  And as with the prophecies, there has to be independent verification that this piece of knowledge was written well prior to when it was actually discovered by science.

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.  And by "miracle" I mean something improbable and flashy.  Your mom's cervical cancer suddenly going into remission is wonderful news, but its not a miracle, especially if she's been seeing an oncologist since her diagnoses.  No, I mean something like the next time Pat Robertson says God will smite San Francisco because of its gay community, San Francisco explodes and leaves behind nothing but a crater.  If a plane crashes and all the Christians on board are surrounded by a golden aura of light that protects them from harm, leaving only the non-Christians to die.  If anything like this happened, I'd convert in a heartbeat.  One wonders why Christians find this so hard to accomplish.

Any direct manifestation of the divine.  I’m not that hard to convert, really.  If God shows up in person and tells me to get with the program, and does so in such a way that I can be convinced He's not a hallucination or an elaborate practical joke, I'm sold.

We meet an alien race who has the exact same religion as we do.  Yeah, I know this one sounds a bit weird, but think about it.  If humanity were to contact an extraterrestrial civilization, and those extraterrestrials were Christian before meeting humans, I'd become a believer in a heartbeat because obviously some next level shit was happening.

Question #3:  Ask if they would believe in miracles if they saw one.

I've already answered this one.  If I saw a true miracle, and there was absolutely no way that this miracle could be explained through any scientific means at all, I'd become a believer.  Now, that said, to be convincing a miracle would have to be genuine, verifiable, and represent a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.  We're talking "tangible violation of the laws of physics" time.  Anything that can be explained by peer pressure, the power of suggestion, stage magic, favorable coincidences, courageous acts performed by normal human beings, or the placebo effect does not count as a real miracle.What I am saying is that a true miracle cannot be described by someone saying "Wow, that was close."  A miracle is about someone raising their hand and calling down the impossible.  Seeing the Virgin Mary on a water stained napkin or Jesus in a pug's ass isn't impressive to me.  Nor is speaking in tongues, "faith healing" (if a faith healer wants to impress me, have him restore a lost limb to an amputee), people falling over because they were "slain in the spirit", or anything that can be chalked up to showmanship and over-exuberance.

Question #4:  Ask them if the cause of nature could be natural.

This is a God of the Gaps argument.  "You don't have an answer for this question, therefore the answer is God did it."  We know nature exists.  We know the universe exists.  We have natural explanations for many of its functions.  The actual first cause of the universe and the singularity from which it formed may never be known, but science accepts "I don't know yet" as a perfectly acceptable answer.

The true problem with a God of the Gaps argument is that, over the last several thousand years, there have been many phenomena that we couldn't explain... until we could.  We used to not know how lightning worked.  Then we figured it out.  We used to not know how tides worked.  Then we figured it out.  Disease?  We figured it out.  Gravity?  We figured it out.  And on and so forth.  Just because we don't have an answer for a question today doesn't mean that we won't have one tomorrow.  And the truth is, we know a lot more about how the world really works than anyone who hasn't been specifically educated in science knows.  The gaps that these Christians insist their God inhabits are getting smaller and smaller and fewer and farther between.

Question #5:  Ask if they believe that people who do bad things deserve to be punished.

At the heart of this question is the assumption that God, and only God, is the source of moral and ethnical behavior.  That it is impossible to hold a standard of good and evil unless one concedes that the God of Christianity exists.  The problem is, there has never existed, in all of the long history of human society, a standardized definition of good or bad that has been universally held by all people and at all times.  And let's not even get into the problems with claiming that a God who, in the Bible, casually orders his followers to commit murder, rape, torture, and genocide.  Is a God who allegedly is punishing the entire human race for the actions of only two specific humans really moral?  Can we really accept the moral judgment of a being who clearly has no sense of proportion or justice when it comes to handing out punishment?

As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Bushey ends his blog with an arrogant assertion that these questions will stump an atheist.

Mr. Bushey, my name is Jack V. Butler, Jr.  I'm from Orlando, Florida, and I've been taking on people like you in the arena of ideas for a long time.

And I'm not stumped by any of your questions.

Five Lies That Creationists Think Are True For Some Reason

One of the most frustrating things about arguing with a Creationist over evolution is that they quite commonly use arguments that have not only been refuted already, but have been conclusively refuted over and over and over.  These lies are ideas that no educated, intelligent person believes anymore.  These ideas are not only wrong, they're stupidly wrong.  But despite this, Creationists seem to believe them.  Not only that, they refuse to accept the fact that they are wrong even after having it shown to them how wrong they are.

These are hardly the only lies in the Creationist arsenal, but I do believe they are the most common ones used.  Others include misunderstanding how radiometric dating techniques are used, trying to apply moral value to science, lies about the origins of Evolution and Charles Darwin, and so on.  I don't have room to list them all, so I only handled the top five.

Lie #1:  Evolution has never been observed, therefore evolution is false.

Way wrong.

Evolution is a change in the genes of an entire species over time.  The rise of bacteria who are resistant to anti-biotics is a perfect example of evolution that's observed all the time.  In addition, the origin of several new species has been directly observed in laboratory conditions, including one case where scientists filmed a species of yeast mold move from being single-celled organisms to being a mutli-cellular organism.

But even without these cases of direct observation, its ludicrous to say that just because its never been seen (and it has, remember).  Evidence isn't limited to eye witness accounts.  You don't have to see things with your own eyes to know they're true.  Evolutionary Science makes predictions about what you ought to expect to see when examining the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, geographical distribution of animal and plant species, and so on.  In the overwhelming percentage of cases, these predictions have been accurate.  The number of observations that support Evolutionary Theory are countless.  Evolution is literally the most well-supported concept in science.

A variation on this lie is "No lizard has ever given birth to a bird" or something similar  This is absolutely true.  But this is also not what evolution says should happen.  In fact, a lizard giving birth to a bird would be evidence against Evolutionary Theory.

Lie #2:  Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Wrong again.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics reads as follows:  "The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy."  What this means, when put in simpler language, is that heat (energy) will never transfer from a cooler object to one that is hotter.  To put it simply, it means that in a closed system, the amount of available useable energy does not increase.  And that's basically all it means.

You might be wondering what that has to do with Evolution.  Well, the problem is that Creationists insist on defining the word "entropy" to mean "disorder", and thus they interpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics to mean that order cannot arise naturally from disorder.  This is a blatant falsehood.  Its an attractive idea, especially to those whose scientific education is, to put it bluntly, lacking, there is no evidence that shows that order cannot arise from disorder naturally.

Ever open a brand new, shrink-wrapped box of paper clips and found several of them linked together?  That wasn't the result of someone at the paper clip factory playing around.  Most paper clip factories, like nearly all factories today, are automated.  The paper clips link themselves due to the jostling chaotic mixing going on as they are dumped in the box.  Order from disorder, naturally and randomly.   A similar phenomenon is sometimes seen when nuts and bolts are kept in the same container:  the nut will spontaneously thread itself onto a bolt just through the jostling the pile of nuts and bolts receives while the container is moved.  Order from disorder, naturally and randomly.  Dust bunnies.  Fibers from blankets, lint from clothing, pet hair, human hair, and other materials fall to the bedroom floor, and circulating air moves them around so that they congregate in places where the air is calmest.  In the process they combine and cling together into little fuzzy clumps.  Once formed, they persist, until swallowed up by a vacuum cleaner.  Order from disorder, naturally.

In addition, when Creationists make this argument, they're ignoring the fact that the earth is not an isolated system.  Maybe you've noticed this big, bright glowing thing in the sky during the day called the sun.  The sun drops terrawatts of energy onto the earth every single second of every day, twenty four hours a day.  Thus, the useable energy of the earth is constantly increasing.  Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things in their lets them create order and since that information comes "from God", its not really a natural process.  This ignores the fact that life is irrelevant to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  I've already demonstrated this in my examples of paper clips, nuts and bolts, and dust bunnies.  In any system which has a lot of energy flowing through it, you'll find order arising somewhere.

Lie #3:  There are no transitional fossils.

Nope.  Sorry.  Wrong again.

The phrase "transitional fossil" is defined as a fossil that looks like its "in between" two other species (usually an ancestor species and a descendant species), carrying a mix of features from both.  

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false.  We have truckloads of them.  Oh sure, there are still gaps in the fossil record, but there always will be.  Erosion and the rarity of conditions that promote fossilization will always make it rare that an entire lineage of fossils can be presented.  But more fossils are discovered all the time, and the gaps in the fossil record are closing.  We have many cases where entire sequences of transitional fossils have been found.  Some of the notable examples where there aren't a lot of gaps are the transition from reptiles to mammal, from land animals to whales, and from early ape to humans.

For the most part, this misconception is perpetuated through a self-serving manipulation of definitions.  A Creationist will look at a transitional fossil that marks where dogs and their close cousins, the bears, separate and will say, "But that's still just a dog", despite the fact that the earliest common ancestor between bears and dogs had a mix of features that any zoologist worth his degree could point out.  Similarly, they will look at theArchaeopteryx fossil and declare it "100% bird" when it is clearly a mix between bird and reptile (in fact, it has more reptile features than bird).

The problem is, these categories are man-made and artificial and have little to do sometimes with actual groupings.  And animals are included in the wrong groups all the time.  For example, during the early days of taxonomy, hyenas were classified as a dog species.  Scientific examination in the late 1800s and early 1900s put them in their own category because they weren't quite matching up with the other dogs.  Modern genetic sequencing, on the other hand, has shown that hyenas are actually an evolutionary branch of the feline family.  That's right.  Hyenas are a type of cat and not dogs at all.  Who knew?

Lie #4:  According to evolution, life arose from, and is the product of, random chance.

Except evolution doesn't say that, and anyone who says this has no idea how evolution actually works.

First, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life.  The Theory of Evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began.  It has nothing to say about how life arose at all.  But let's consider the problem for a moment.  Some Creationists will argue about the probability of life arising by itself, but their argument ignores the fact that on the early earth, there were literal oceans of organic molecules to start with, and billions of years in which life could form.  And we're here, so it obviously did.  A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it can recognize the immense range of starting materials that the first life form might have formed from, the uncountably high number of different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been completely non-random to start with.

Second, while there is a certain role random chance plays in the evolutionary process, the truth is that evolution is far more driven by natural selection than random chance, and natural selection is the exact opposite of random chance.  Random chance, in the form of mutations, does provide for genetic variation.  But genetic variation is the raw material that natural selection uses to construct new species.  Natural selection sorts out which genetic variation will be passed on to the next generation and which variation won't using very specific standards.  Those variations that make it easier for a creature to thrive and reproduce meet the standards.  Those variations that make it harder don't meet the standards and are discarded.  When the environment changes, so do the standards, leading to entirely new species.

Lie #5:  Evolution hasn't been proven because its just a theory.

This lie is what I call the "idiot test."  Anyone who says this isn't just ignorant, they're stupid.

The irony here is that calling Evolution "just a theory" is technically the truth.  Its the reason they are saying it, and what they mean when they say "theory" that is wrong.  According to the Random House American College Dictionary, a scientific theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a group of phenomena."  That's a fancy way of saying "an idea that has a metric fuck-ton of evidence behind it, to the point that no one with an ounce of sense argues with it anymore."  A "theory", in science, is not a guess but a near certainty.  In science, a theory differs only from a scientific law in the fact that you can usually explain a scientific law in fewer words.  Being declared a theory means that an idea is self-consistent, agrees with observations, and is useful.

Science deals with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.  The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still hasn't been "proven" to 100% certainty.  What evolution has is what any good scientific theory has is evidence, and lots of it.  Evolution is one of the single-most supported scientific ideas in the history of the human race, if not the most supported.  Evidence for evolution comes by way of genetics, anatomy, ecology, biology, zoology, paleontology, and many other scientific fields.

Creationists and the Problem of Mutation

So... we've got this quote from Young Earth Creationist Chris Callesen:

"The thing that debunks evolution in simple terms is math.  Being that the number of possible code combinations to even form one molecule of DNA is the numeral 4, with a THOUSAND zeros behind it. Given that margin for error, and coupled with the fact that there are 1000 DESTRUCTIVE mutations in a row before a supposed "beneficial mutation" (oxymoron) the numbers defy this backward logic that every complex and beautiful creature developed slowly over millions of years until these random mutations "accidentally" got it right. Its absolutely profoundly stupid when you do the math."

Well... no.


Sorry, but your reasoning is faulty on many levels.  Your understanding of basic probability is faulty, but even worse is your understanding of how mutations work in combination with natural selection to drive evolution.  The fact that you think "beneficial mutation" is an oxymoron makes that clear enough.


So, a quick refresher on just that subject.


Your average species sees several dozen mutations appear in each generation.  The overwhelming majority of these mutations are perfectly neutral.  That is, they neither help the individual creature that possesses them, nor harms the creature.  They just are.  When and if that creature reproduces, there's a chance the mutation will be carried to the next generation, but since the mutation provides no benefit, its just as likely that it won't.


I'll give you a for instance:  I have webbed toes.


My webbed toes are from a mutation that causes the individual toes to not separate from one another.  Each of my toes is still there, they have individual bones and muscle and toenails, but the toes themselves are not separated past the first "knuckle" of each individual toe.  It gives my feet the appearance of being short and stubby.  My mother's toes are the same way, as were her mother's toes.  We're not sure how far back they go, to be honest, but I do know that none of my children have webbed toes, so its possible that the mutation stopped at me.  However, its just as possible that my grandchildren or great-grandchildren could get them.


The point being, they are a neutral mutation, and as such are just sort of there.


Interestingly enough, a neutral mutation has every chance of becoming a beneficial or harmful mutation, depending on changes the creature's circumstances and environment undergo.  For example, if I was suddenly left to fend for myself in an environment that required I have normal toes (just go with it), I'd be in trouble, and so would any of my descendants that inherited my mutation.


After neutral mutations, the most common form of mutation are, in fact, the harmful ones.  These are the ones that are bad for you.  A harmful mutation will do all kinds of nasty stuff, like cause a baby to be born with acephaly (a lack of most of its brain) or non-functional organs, or be unable to process a certain needed enzyme, and so on.  Most harmful mutations either prevent or make it very, very difficult for the creature to reproduce, and they do this usually by simply killing the creature that possesses them.


Now, I can hear the Creationists out there screaming "AHA!  SO YOU ADMIT MUTATION CAN'T CAUSE EVOLUTION AND THAT EVOLUTION IS A LIE!"


Shut up, sit down, and listen.  That's not what I said.


What I said was harmful mutations kill the creature that posseses them, usually before they can reproduce.  What that means is that the harmful mutations are almost always weeded out of the population almost as fast as they are introduced.  They are very rarely passed on to the next generation of creature because of this.


Which leaves us beneficial mutations.


A beneficial mutation is any mutation that gives an individual creature a leg up when it comes to survival and reproduction.  And because they grant advantages to the creatures that possess them, they invariably get passes on to the next generation of creature.  Since the mutations that are being passed on are advantageous, they accumulate and spread throughout the population of the species.


And when enough changes accumulate, you end up with a new species.


So, Mr. Callesen, that's how mutations work with natural selection.  Next time, I'd advise you to keep your trap shut about things you don't understand, lest you look even more like an idiot than you already do.

Ten Questions For Believers in Divine Creation and Intelligent Design That Never Seem To Get Answered

Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other religion's version of Divine Creation?

Follow-up questions:

• If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
• If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?
• If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?
• Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

Why do so many Christians accept Evolution as truth?


Is there any scientific observation which supports any feature of your theory?  (Note:  an adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be wrong.  Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than the Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough.  Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

Follow-up question:

• Is there any scientific observation which was predicted by your theory?

Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)

Follow-up question:

• Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give thesame answers.)

Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test?  (This is often stated as "Is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified?", after Karl Popper's criterion.  Another way of phrasing it is, "Is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?"

Follow-up questions:

• Is there any observation which has changed your theory?
• Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world?   What this question is asking is how is it possible that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia?  Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only?  This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.

Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? What this question is asking is how many of each kind of clean animal truly went on the Ark?  Please present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted.  If you change the text of Genesis in the course of constructing your answer, give a reason for the change other than the need to make the text of Genesis fit your specific beliefs.

Follow-up questions:

• Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)
• What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
• Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.  
• Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.  
• Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.
• Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle.
• Explain the meaning of the word "kind".
• Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
• Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (8) and to the distribution referred to in question (7).  
• Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? 

Follow-up question:

• Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

Tips For Atheists Who Want to Debate Christians

#1. Start off casual.
You should first show how atheism has impacted your own life in a positive way. Citing peer-reviewed scientific publications at every possible opportunity may be a bit much for most Christians, as most of them wouldn't know how to read a scientific paper if you held a gun to their head.

However, if they bring up their belief that God did this or that in their life, it is okay to point out to them other factors that helped them, such as probability, their own work, or a professional's skill, during those times they believe that it was God doing the heavy lifting.



#2.  Keep your temper.
Try and be polite as you can, regardless of how much you'd rather not, for as long as you possibly can.  This is pretty basic.  Do not be rude.  Be polite, and be understanding.  If a Christian says something you find stultifyingly stupid... and they will... then just take a deep breath and calmly and collectedly explain why it is that what they just said doesn't make sense.

And yes, I know, I haven't always followed this rule.  Doesn't mean it shouldn't be a rule.  Just means I'm bad at following it.



#3.  Get them in the habit of questioning their own faith.
Sometimes pointing out a single fallacy every now and then is sufficient. Likewise, asking them to explain something about their religion you don't understand to get them thinking about deeper meaning.



#4.  Let them try to convert you.
Many Christians will automatically try to convert you the moment they find out you're an atheist. This is the easiest way to engage them, especially if you are familiar with the arguments they use. By simply remaining calm, firm, yet reasonable, you are already bringing in to question the stereotype of the "immoral and angry atheists."



#5.  Stay on point.
Don't allow the subject to be changed.  Once the point of the discussion has been established, don't get tied up in side-arguments.  If you have to (politely) point out that your discussion partner has attempted to change the subject, then do so.  And then maneuver the conversation back on point.



#6.  Read and understand their holy book cover-to-cover.
Read the Bible.  Read the Koran.  Read the Torah and the Bhagavad Gita.  Learn what these books say.  Learn what the most commonly quoted verses are.  Learn where the contradictions and the scientific errors are.  Learn which of these scripture's stories not only contain the contradictions but also have been proven historically false (like the Hebrew Exodus out of Egypt, or the Great Flood).



#7.  Learn common arguments leveled by theists and the best rebuttals.
Although it is not possible to prepare for every conceivable argument that might be brought to the table by a Christian, there are a handful of arguments which do seem to be used over and over and over and over again.  Study the common talking points of Christian apologetics, and be prepared with their refutations.

These refuted-yet-still-used arguments include the "Fine-Tuned Universe" argument, the "Evolution is Just a Theory" argument, Kalam's Cosmological Argument, Pascal's Wager, Arguments from Morality, the "Abiogenesis = Evolution" argument,  the "Second Law" argument, the "Tornado in a Junkyard" argument, the "Banana Man" argument, "Irreducibly Complexity", Arguments from Personal Experience, Teleological Reasoning, and so on.  Also memorize the list of "Arguments Creationists Should Never Use" list, found on the Creationist website "Answers in Genesis", because using a Creationists own arguments against him is often the best way to convince them they are wrong.

Learn the Presuppositionalist Playbook and choose your favorite way of utterly destroying it.

The point is, pretty much all of these arguments have been refuted already.  Learn these refutations and keep them in mind every time you talk to a Christian.  This way, you'll better understand what they are trying to say, and you can more easily explain to them why using these arguments is a mistake. Likewise, become familiar with all of the logical fallacies and the reasons why they are logical fallacies, and be prepared to inform your discussion partner of when they have made use of one of these fallacies.



#8.  Keep your temper.
Try and be polite as you can, regardless of how much you'd rather not, for as long as you possibly can.

Yes, this is a repeat of #2, but it needs to be repeated.  It is a statistical fact that as the length of the discussion increases, the chances that the Christian you are talking to will say something that is either a) utterly and completely insulting, b) utterly and completely condescending, c) a scientific error that any 2nd Grader should have known was wrong, or d) something that you've already refuted utterly approaches 1:1.  When this happens, take a deep breath and count to 10 and realize that they aren't (hopefully) trying to intentionally piss you off.



#9.  Be respectful of their beliefs, even if you find them ridiculous.
Christians have a right to their own opinions, even as you do, and its amazingly rude to be disrespectful of these beliefs.  Likewise, treat the Bible with respect, even as you are proving that its nothing more than a work of fiction (believe it or not, doing both is possible; if you don't believe me, I direct you to Isaac Asimov's "Guide to the Bible").



#10.  Be open-minded.
Listen and understand their point of view. Learn what makes them believe what they do. Remember, we can't prove, in any absolute sense, that no gods exist. We can only show evidence that gods and religion have truly human origins, point out inconsistencies in their belief, and show how scientists have answered a number of the grand questions of the universe. We can only show that the world doesn't end when your faith does.



#11.  Examine the reasons why people end up believing in myths, urban legends, and superstitions in the first place.
If you can gain an understanding as to why people believe stories that are backed by little evidence, you'll be able to understand the thinking of your discussion partner.  Being knowledgeable about the psychology of belief will better prepare you for the challenges ahead.



#12.  Study basic physics and biology, as believers may form arguments using a flawed interpretation of physics, chemistry, or biology.
Understanding the core of these subjects will allow you to identify poor arguments like that from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



#13.  Don't try to change them too drastically or too quickly.
Deconversion from a lifetime of religious indoctrination is a highly personal activity that inherently takes a long time.  Changes are gradual, so don't push too hard.  Let the other person come to their own understanding of a world without any gods. A journey of personal discovery will always yield stronger results than browbeating them.



#14.  Keep to the same standards of evidence as you are holding them to.
If you make a fact, you should be prepared to support that claim with evidence.  Being able to do so, especially when your discussion partner has openly said that you won't be able to, is an especially strong move in a discussion.



#15.  Admit when you are  wrong.
Usually, you'll only be wrong about the little things, but admit it anyway.



#16.  Have a sense of humor.
At some point, you might be mocked for not believing in God.  Do not get angry, because all  that shows is that you are immature, have a thin skin, and need to grow  up.



#17.  Know when to back away.
Don't let differences and debate cause bad feelings.  Know when to let the Christian off the hook and when their off of it, leave them be for a while.  And also, know when the Christian you are talking to is an utterly bugnuts insane wackadoo to whom talking is never going to be convincing.